Obama after the Assualt Weapons Ban Already.

[RedRocket1647545505]

we should also be allowed to have anit tank, & anti aircraft arms as well since those are modern day arms needed to keep the government in check.

 

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic but, I'll throw out my opinion on this anyways:

 

I feel, that if you can afford it, you should be able to own it. The problem we as common citizens run into is, 1) we can't afford it, and 2) the gov't most likely has contracts with the weapons developers to sell only to them.

 

I don't, however, think the gov't should be able to tell me that I can't own such a thing.

[Guest Hal]

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic but, I'll throw out my opinion on this anyways:

 

I feel, that if you can afford it, you should be able to own it. The problem we as common citizens run into is, 1) we can't afford it, and 2) the gov't most likely has contracts with the weapons developers to sell only to them.

 

I don't, however, think the gov't should be able to tell me that I can't own such a thing.

 

Another thing that needs quoted.

[flounder1647545522]

The term assault weapon bothers me in the first place. Its a semi automatic rifle. There is nothing assaulting about it but yet the govt labels it as that to induce fear and ultimately get people who dont know anything about it to vote with what they want. Im sure some of you have seen the youtube vids where politicians are talking about assault weapons and certain types of bullets. Its a friggen joke as they have no idea what they are saying.

[Drewhop]

Austin for president.

[Guest Hal]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f277/punkhott712/barrel-shroud.jpg

[TTQ B4U]

If you let the gov't legislate out all of your modern firearms, then how are you supposed to control the gov't should the time arise? Are you going to do it with a bolt action .22? Highly doubtful. The gov't knows that a WELL ARMED populous is harder to control. And the gov't doesn't like knowing that they're weaker than The People.

 

At the end of the day, if the gov't wanted to impose control, there are many, many more effective means of control than just having stronger weapons. I would say it's slim to zero that there will ever be a mass public uprising here in the states.

 

Those that control the money have the power. Combined with those same people having the military and other branches of enforcement on their side, I would say odds on in favor of the gov't winning. Even a fully automatic weapon isn't going to help a band of rebels in today's society.

 

It's way off subject to continue to discuss, but that's my initial thought.

[RedRocket1647545505]

At the end of the day, if the gov't wanted to impose control, there are many, many more effective means of control than just having stronger weapons. I would say it's slim to zero that there will ever be a mass public uprising here in the states.

 

Those that control the money have the power. Combined with those same people having the military and other branches of enforcement on their side, I would say odds on in favor of the gov't winning. Even a fully automatic weapon isn't going to help a band of rebels in today's society.

 

It's way off subject to continue to discuss, but that's my initial thought.

 

I would agree that the chances of an uprising are slim to none in today's day and age. It's been said before, and I'd have to agree; this country has turned into a bunch of pussies.

 

But, I would have to say that just because one doesn't think their side could win, that it's justifiable to just give up, and submit.

 

Remember, the colonists had about an ice cube's chance in hell of winning as well...

[dragknee66]

I wouldnt be completely shocked if we saw another civil war before most of us were dead.

[TTQ B4U]

I would agree that the chances of an uprising are slim to none in today's day and age. It's been said before, and I'd have to agree; this country has turned into a bunch of pussies.

 

But, I would have to say that just because one doesn't think their side could win, that it's justifiable to just give up, and submit.

 

Remember, the colonists had about an ice cube's chance in hell of winning as well...

 

I wouldn't say we as a nation are a bunch of pussies. We are way more complex than back in the day when the 2nd A was written and the population as a whole is more educated and aware. The founding fathers didn't have nearly the variables and issues to deal with as we do today. Thus it's not likely that the vary same point is going to apply in the same fashion thus new ways of dealing with these issues going to be put in place. Some will disagree with them. Times change as do people.

 

Just because "x" product is out there doesn't mean there shouldn't be restrictions on who can own "x" You still have a right to bear arms and protect yourself. No one is taking that away.

[ohmr95b]

So you can do wrong, get caught and allow others to profit. I've said it before and will say it again, not much in this country is done without being attached to the almighty dollar. Same goes for legaliztion of weed. We've had these discussions here before.

 

Basically what's happening in Mexico is a good example of what those opposing Assult Weapons are saying. Irrisponisble owners and dealers and in some cases just plain the laws as they are now provide access to these guns by those that shouldn't have them. The whole reason it's going on is tied to drugs and ultimately money.

 

Not that I agree with the approach, but rather than bitch about it and slam a guy here asking a legit question, let's see how many folks can come up with a rational and working soluition.

 

Go ahead impress us.........discuss the cure vs bitching. It will make for a more interesting thread.

 

I'll give it a go. If you look at the inception of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, there is much more that goes into the 2nd Amendment that the words that we have now. If you look at the writings of the forefathers, like the Federalist Papers, you can see the the spirit that goes into the 2nd Amendment. The spirit is to give the general populace the ability to resist the government should the need arise, and also to resist that government on a level playing field. They are saying that we understand that a standing military must exsist to protect the country against outside invasion ("A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,), but we want the populace to have arms for themselves (the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") Remember that England had been "regulating arms" to the Colonies for years in hopes to keep them quiet, and also that the first battles of the Revolutionary War in Lexington and Concord were fought due to British detachments being sent to destory military supplies and confiscate weapons in those towns. The forefathers knew this, and they also understood that governments tended to run towards tyranny the older they got, and the forefathers wanted to ensure that should this new "American" government end up tyrannic that the people had the means to resist.

 

Extrapolate this idea a few hundred years into the future, this idea that the general populace should be able to resist the federal military on an equal playing field, and laws like NFA 1934, GCA 1968, AWB 1994, and AWB TBD smack of being totally unconstitutional. According to the spirit under which the 2nd Amendment was drafted, and I, as an American citizen should be able to buy M240B machine guns, M203 grenade launchers, M67 fragmentation grenades, Stinger missles, and Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicles at Wal-Mart with my milk and eggs. While even I am not crazy enough to think that is a "good" idea per se, it is the spirit under which the 2nd Amendment was drafted. "Assault Weapons" (a misnomer, but that is a different discussion) are the last truly effective small arms that the general populace have access to in America that fit the bill of resisting government tyranny, that is why we "need" them.

 

It is also against the spirit of American lawmaking to try and base laws on things the people "need." American lawmaking should be about regulating BEHAVIOR not THINGS. Behavior is what makes things dangerous to people, not the things themselves. Cars/toasters/rifles/hammers/shotguns/nukes can all be used properly if they are used by people that understand the consequences of their actions. Imagine if all laws were based on the "need" of the people for things. Do you really need a 200mph ZR1? Wouldnt a nice Accord be more economical and safer? Wouldn't that 2 bedroom/1 bath house be better? It is cheap, does the job, and is easier to heat/cool. It's ecofriendly! I could wax poetic on this for awhile, but I think that this is sufficient.

[Mitch]

The term assault weapon bothers me in the first place. Its a semi automatic rifle. There is nothing assaulting about it but yet the govt labels it as that to induce fear and ultimately get people who dont know anything about it to vote with what they want.

 

My sentiments exactly. Whats the difference in function between a 10/22 and an AR15? one trigger pull, one shot. It's like breed specific legislation in dogs, just dumb. High cap mags? If I couldn't hit what I was aiming at with 10 rounds, what is 15 going to do for me?

[KillJoy]

My sentiments exactly. Whats the difference in function between a 10/22 and an AR15? Bullet weight, speed, effective range one trigger pull, one shot. It's like breed specific legislation in dogs, just dumb. High cap mags? If I couldn't hit what I was aiming at with 10 rounds, what is 15 going to do for me? What about Beta C-Mags? Even YOU could hit something using one of them!

 

KillJoy

[flounder1647545522]

My sentiments exactly. Whats the difference in function between a 10/22 and an AR15? one trigger pull, one shot. It's like breed specific legislation in dogs, just dumb. High cap mags? If I couldn't hit what I was aiming at with 10 rounds, what is 15 going to do for me?

 

+1 agreed.. Its just a matter of time before they try to take away our hunting rifles because "The public doesnt need a firearm that is capable of hitting a target at 1000 yards." Personally, I am quite comfortable taking shots out to 1000 yards so I guess that makes me a target for the next round of firearm bans.

[TTQ B4U]

 

While even I am not crazy enough to think that is a "good" idea per se, it is the spirit under which the 2nd Amendment was drafted. "Assault Weapons" (a misnomer, but that is a different discussion) are the last truly effective small arms that the general populace have access to in America that fit the bill of resisting government tyranny, that is why we "need" them.

 

Well, the time has come that we start making decision on facts and put some "good ideas" into play. if it's not a good idea, then fuck it, I don't need to be surrounded by a populace that has access to military weapons so they can in reality never use them in accordance with the "spirit" everyone is trying to defend. Not when someone with the IQ of a dog and a mullet can go get an assult rifle.

 

IMO, they shouldn't be banned, but they should as hell need regulated and have restrictions added to them. If everyone has a right, that's fine, go buy a pistol or a rifle or shotgun. Want an assult weapon or however you want to define some of these guns, then make them pass through a series of qualifications that will determine if they can have them. Personally, no one "needs" them. 99.9% of those arguing against any regulation simply just "want" them because they have a right to do so. People also "want" children to abuse and not care for while I flip the bill and dogs they let run lose and can train to fight too. No thanks, there are very likely better solutions to put in place some 218 years later.

 

 

It is also against the spirit of American lawmaking to try and base laws on things the people "need." American lawmaking should be about regulating BEHAVIOR not THINGS. Behavior is what makes things dangerous to people, not the things themselves.

 

You're right, and the behavior of the citizens of this country still sucks and all you have to do is look around at the irresponsibility in this country and see that until we can fix dumb fucks who can't manage money, raise and care for children properly or obey some of the basic fucking laws, we sure as hell shouldn't be allowing them to own assault rifles. Some, but certainly not everyone...thus some qualifications need to be put in place.

 

Cars/toasters/rifles/hammers/shotguns/nukes can all be used properly if they are used by people that understand the consequences of their actions.

 

fair enough, then once again, let's come up with a set of qualifications that will insure these weapons are in hands of only people who are qualified, understand their use and the consequences of said use and ownership.

Edited February 26, 2009 by TTQ B4U

[smokinHawk1647545499]

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic but, I'll throw out my opinion on this anyways:

 

I feel, that if you can afford it, you should be able to own it. The problem we as common citizens run into is, 1) we can't afford it, and 2) the gov't most likely has contracts with the weapons developers to sell only to them.

 

I don't, however, think the gov't should be able to tell me that I can't own such a thing.

 

actually I was being serious, 100%

the only thing i disagree with you is, that they should be more affordable.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I'd just like someone to tell me what makes an 'assault weapon' any more dangerous than a 'normal weapon' ?

 

Seriously. A bullet to the head, is a bullet to the head. Your dead body won't know the difference.

 

And as flounder said, where does it stop?

-Ok, you've got 'assault weapons' banned. Now what?

-Well, hi-cap mags are the problem. No more mags with a capacity >10rd.

-Well, now 10 rds. is too much, so we'll pick another arbitrary #, we'll say 5rds.

-Woah. Now 5 rd. is too much. You could kill 7 school children with that 5rd. mag!

-No more detachable mags. They're too dangerous. You have no logical reason to need to reload that fast.

-Well, now your single shot .308 is too powerful. You could kill someone from 2 miles away with that thing

-Nothing allowed over .223. We've gotta keep those boolits from reaching China and starting WWIII.

-Welp, someone managed to get a .223 to reach China, almost starting WWIII

-We're gonna have to regulate it to strictly single shot .22LR and below. Anything else is unnecessary. The general population doesn't need anything more.

-We've just got teh murder statistics in; more people are killed with .22LR than anything else. We're gonna have to ban guns completely. so sry.

-Knives only

-Oh shit, knife crime is on the rise. What will we do? Ban those evil assault knives!

 

Do you see where I'm going with this? The weapon is NEVER the problem. Never was. People are the problem. Always have been.

 

Just take a look at England for how effective an outright ban on guns has been. They're now trying to ban knives. I'm not kidding.

 

Trying to blame an item for making a person do the crime is stupid. I'll go back to the original quote;

 

'Trying to blame gun crime on the gun is like trying to blame the spoon for making Rosie O'Donell fat'

[dragknee66]

'Trying to blame gun crime on the gun is like trying to blame the spoon for making Rosie O'Donell fat'

 

.

Guns dont kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

[87GT]

.

Guns dont kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

 

I have a t-shirt that says "Guns don't kill people. Kids who play video games kill people." I wear it all the time.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Ray of HOPE, or subterfuge?

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-02-26.html

 

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault weapon ban

By Mike Soraghan

Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

 

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

 

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

 

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

 

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Off to school, ladies. Leave some good pro-ban arguments for me to shred apart tonight.

[87GT]

Off to school, ladies. Leave some good pro-ban arguments for me to shred apart tonight.

 

We will miss you.

[smokinHawk1647545499]

Ray of HOPE, or subterfuge?

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-02-26.html

 

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault weapon ban

By Mike Soraghan

Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

 

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

 

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

 

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

 

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

 

holy crap i thought she would be trying to ram this through as well.

oh well, she still is the devil.

 

edit, though; looking at the spin, if all the information she gives

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

nothing really about not pushing it through, just saying to enforce the laws.

guess its all how the newscaster spins it.

[V8 Beast]

Guns are outdated and barbaric. When are we going to get lasers?

[dragknee66]

Guns are outdated and barbaric. When are we going to get lasers?

 

When you do the stanky leg for us

[flounder1647545522]

When you do the stanky leg for us

 

Jlaw is the stanky leg.... You hitting the gym today or skipping as usual slacker. After my 3 burgers last night I think I need to spend the night at the gym.